Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs :
"(i) set aside the judgement and decree dated 19.7.2014 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division/Judge Small Causes, Gautam Budh Nagar in S.C.C. Suit No.7 of 2008 (Prem Singh v. Shamshad Khan ) and judgement dated 26.10.2015 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Gautambudh Nagar in S.C.C. Revision No.04 of 2014 (Shamshad Khan v. Prem Singh ;
(ii) issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submits as under.
(i) That Judge Small Causes Court, while passing the impugned judgement dated 19.7.2014 in S.C.C. Suit No.7 of 2008 has not recorded any finding with regard to the date of construction of the tenanted house so as to rebut the finding on the question of applicability of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and thus, the finding recorded by the court below that the aforesaid Act, is not applicable, is wholly erroneous.
(ii) The landlord of the tenanted property was one Sri Dharam Singh and as such the S.C.C. case could not have been instituted by the plaintiff-respondent.
Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits as under :
(i) The petitioner has not raised any objection either before the Judge Small Causes Court or before the revisional court in S.C.C. Revision No.04 of 2014 with regard to the date of construction of the tenanted house. The court below has recorded a finding of fact that the tenanted house was constructed after the year 1976. Even no contrary evidence has been led by the defendant-petitioner that the house in question was constructed prior to the year 1976.
(ii) It is undisputed that the original owner and landlord of the tenanted property was one Sri Pooran Singh, who had executed the power of attorney in favour of Sri Dharam Singh and after the death of Sri Pooran Singh, the name of his son Sri Man Mohan Singh was mutated in the records of the Noida Authority vide order dated 21.5.1999. Sri Man Mohan Singh sold the tenanted house in question by transfer deed dated 28.3.2001 to one Sri Jagat Singh, who had sold the property in question to the plaintiff-respondent by registered sale deed dated 30.10.2007. Thus, the plaintiff-respondent is the owner and landlord of the tenanted house.
I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
So far as the first submission of the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner is concerned, I find that no such argument or objection was raised by the defendant-petitioner either before the Judge Small Causes Court or before the revisional court, as evident from judgement and order dated 19.7.2014 passed in S.S.C. Suit No.7 of 2008 and the judgement and order dated 26.10.2015 passed in S.C.C. Revision No.04 of 2014 and as such the submission of the learned counsel deserves to be rejected. The findings recorded by the court below with regard to the non applicability of the Act, is based on consideration of relevant materials on record.
So far as the second submission of the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner is concerned, I find that it is wholly undisputed that the original landlord of the house in question was Sri Pooran Singh and after his death, the name of his son Sri Man Mohan Singh was mutated in the records of the Noida Authority in the year 1999. The aforesaid Sri Man Mohan Singh transferred the said property to one Sri Jagat Singh in the year 2001, who sold the property in question by registered sale deed dated 30.10.2007 to the plaintiff-respondent. Sri Pooran Singh had executed a power of attorney in favour of Sri Dharam Singh, but that power of attorney cannot be said to be surviving after the death of Sri Pooran Singh.
The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner, that Sri Dharam Singh was the landlord of the property in question appears to be baseless, inasmuch as, the aforesaid Sri Dharam Singh was merely a holder of the power of attorney of the earlier owner Sri Pooran Singh, who died in the year 1999. Thus, the plaintiff-respondent is the owner and landlord of the property in question, as evidenced by registered transferred deed dated 30.10.2007.
In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is misconceived and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
In result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
After the judgement was dictated, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner on the basis of instruction of the petitioner, prayed that three month's time may be granted to vacate the tenanted portion with an undertaking that the defendant-petitioner shall hand over peaceful possession of the tenanted property to the plaintiff-respondent on or before the expiry of three months from today.
In view of the prayer so made it is directed that the petitioner shall give the aforesaid undertaking before the court below within three weeks from today and shall vacate the tenanted property within three months thereafter, subject to payment of damages at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month and the deposit of the entire decreetal amount within three weeks from today.
The undertaking shall be submitted by the defendant-petitioner before the court below within the aforesaid period of three weeks along with proof of deposit of the decreetal amount. On deposit of the decreetal amount, the same may be released by the court below to the landlord, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 10.2.2016 Ak/